Colbert Caring Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
631120566
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Tuscumbia, AL, USA
Phone
2563818464
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Emergency Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$210,433
Expenses
$156,646
Assets
$51,162
Liabilities
$213

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN MARTIN (DIRECTOR): $26,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Aid indigent colbert county residents.

What it reported doing in 2020

Program services list attached. Approximately 1,100 families aided.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.8%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.6%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.8% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $122K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.